DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Habib [JP 2015013627].
Regarding claim 1: Habib shows a wheel assembly, comprising:
a frame, comprising a seat portion (120) and a support portion (110) connected to each other;
at least one movable wheel (140), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) has a first edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 140) located opposite to the seat portion; and at least one guide wheel (130), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the at least one guide wheel (130) has a second edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 130) located opposite to the seat portion (120), and the second edge of the at least one guide wheel (130) is located closer to the seat portion than the first edge of the at least one movable wheel (140); wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel (130) having a rotation axis not penetrating through the at least one movable wheel (140, see fig 2, the axis C2 does not penetrate or go through the wheel 130).
Regarding claim 2: Habib shows wherein a distance from the second edge of the at least one guide wheel (130) to the seat portion is greater than a distance from a rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (140) to the seat portion (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 3: Habib shows wherein a rotation axis of the at least one guide wheel (130) is located closer to the seat portion than the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (140).
Regarding claim 4: Habib shows wherein the distance from the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel to the seat portion (120) is substantially equal to a distance from a rotation axis of the at least one guide wheel to the seat portion (120).
Regarding claim 5: Habib shows wherein a rotation axis of the at least one guide wheel (130) is located farther away from the seat portion (120) than the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (140).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) has an outer profile, the first edge is located at a position of the outer profile where is located farthest from the seat portion (120, see fig 3), a reference point is defined to be located at the outer profile, the reference point is located farther away from the seat portion than the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (130)and is located closer to the seat portion than the first edge, a line connected to the reference point and the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel is at an angle to a line connected to the first edge and the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel, the angle is 45 degrees (see fig 7, and the distance from the second edge of the at least one guide wheel (140) to the seat portion is smaller than a distance from the reference point to the seat portion.
Regarding claim 7: Habib shows wherein a rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (140) is parallel to a rotation axis of the at least one guide wheel (130), and the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel is not overlapped with the rotation axis of the at least one guide wheel.
Regarding claim 8: Habib shows wherein in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the at least one movable wheel (140), the at least one movable wheel is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel (130).
Regarding claim 9: Habib shows, wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) comprises two movable wheels (140, 140), the two movable wheels are coaxially and rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), and the at least one guide wheel (130) is partially located between the two movable wheels (140, 140).
Regarding claim 12: Habib shows a movable electronic device, comprising:
a main body (10); and a plurality of wheel assemblies (100), respectively disposed at different positions of the main body (10) and each comprising: a frame, comprising a seat portion (120) and a support portion (110) connected to each other, wherein the seat portion is mounted on the main body (10);
a movable wheel (140), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the movable wheel (140) has a first edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 140) located opposite to the seat portion (120); and
a guide wheel (130), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the guide wheel (130) has a second edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 130) located opposite to the seat portion (120), and the second edge of the guide wheel is located closer to the seat portion (120) than the first edge of the movable wheel (140); wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel (130) having a rotation axis not penetrating through the at least one movable wheel (140, see fig 2, the axis C2 does not penetrate or go through the wheel 130).
Regarding claim 13: Habib shows wherein the support portion (110) is rotatably disposed on the seat portion (120), and the guide wheel (130) is located in a rotation range formed by the movable wheel rotated relative to the seat portion (120) via the support portion (110).
Regarding claim 16: Habib shows wherein a distance from the second edge of the guide wheel (130) to the seat portion (120) is greater than a distance from a rotation axis of the movable wheel to the seat portion (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 17: Habib shows wherein a rotation axis of the guide wheel is located closer to the seat portion (120) than the rotation axis of the movable wheel.
Regarding claim 19: Habib shows wherein a rotation axis of the guide wheel (130) is located farther away from the seat portion (120) than the rotation axis of the movable wheel (140).
Regarding claim 20: Habib shows a movable electronic device, comprising:
a main body (10);
a driving source (the motor), disposed on the main body;
a driving wheel (200), connected to the driving source; and
a plurality of wheel assemblies (100), respectively disposed at different positions of the main body and each comprising:
a frame comprising a seat portion (120) and a support portion (110) connected to each other, wherein the seat portion (120) is mounted on the main body (10);
a movable wheel (140), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the movable wheel (140) has a first edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 140) located opposite to the seat portion (120); and
a guide wheel (130), rotatably disposed on the support portion (110), wherein the guide wheel (130) has a second edge (the outer circumference of the wheel 130) located opposite to the seat portion (120), and the second edge of the guide wheel (130) is located closer to the seat portion (120) than the first edge of the movable wheel (140, see fig 3);
wherein the driving source (the motor) is configured to drive the driving wheel (200) to move the main body so as to drive the plurality of wheel assemblies (see translation [0011] “…the wheelchair 10 drives a motor, a battery, a shaft, etc. for rotating the rear wheel 200 and changing the direction of the rear wheel 200…”).
wherein the at least one movable wheel (140) is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel (130) having a rotation axis not penetrating through the at least one movable wheel (140, see fig 2, the axis C2 does not penetrate or go through the wheel 130).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habib [JP 2015013627] in view of Wang [CN 212667549].
Regarding claims 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18: Habib shows wherein the plurality of driving wheels (200) are rotatably disposed on different positions of the main body (10), and the driving source (motor) are disposed on the main body and are respectively connected to the plurality of driving wheels (200). A plurality of driving wheels (200) and a drive source (motor), wherein the plurality of driving wheels (200) are rotatably disposed on different positions of the main body (10), and the driving sources (motor) is disposed on the main body and are respectively connected to the plurality of driving wheels (200), the two driving wheels (200. See fig 1) are located opposite to each other
wherein the distance from the rotation axis of the movable wheel (140) to the seat portion is substantially equal to a distance from a rotation axis of the guide wheel to the seat portion (see fig 7.
Habib does not show the at least one guide wheel comprises two guide wheels, the two guide wheels are coaxially and rotatably disposed on the support portion, and the at least one movable wheel is partially located between the two guide wheels.
wherein an outer diameter of the at least one movable wheel (140) is greater than an outer diameter of the at least one guide wheel.
the quantity of the plurality of driving sources are two, the quantity of the plurality of wheel assemblies is four, the four wheel assemblies are respectively disposed at four corners of the main body, one of the two driving wheels is located between two of the four-wheel assemblies, and the other one of the two driving wheels is located between the other two of the four wheel assemblies.
wherein the distance from the rotation axis of the movable wheel to the seat portion is substantially equal to a distance from a rotation axis of the guide wheel to the seat portion.
However Wang shows the at least one guide wheel comprises two guide wheels, the two guide wheels are coaxially and rotatably disposed on the support portion, and the at least one movable wheel is partially located between the two guide wheels.
wherein an outer diameter of the at least one movable wheel (1) is greater than an outer diameter of the at least one guide wheel (3, see fig 1).
the quantity of the plurality of wheel assemblies is four, the four wheel assemblies are respectively disposed at four corners of the main body, one of the two driving wheels (3) is located between two of the four-wheel assemblies, and the other one of the two driving wheels is located between the other two of the four wheel assemblies (see fig 1).
Habib and Wang do not explicitly disclose two driving sources the quantity of the plurality of driving sources are two, however having a duplication of parts is design choice and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Habib to include a second driving source to serve as backup or provide additional power
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Habib to include two driving sources and two guide wheels assemblies as an obvious duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In to applicant argument regarding that the added limitations “…wherein the at least one movable wheel is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel having a rotation axis not penetrating through the at least one movable wheel…” are not taught in Habib.
Habib shows in figure 2 that the at least one movable wheel (140) is partially overlapped with the at least one guide wheel (130) having a rotation axis not penetrating through the at least one movable wheel (140, see fig 2, the axis C2 does not penetrate or go through the wheel 130).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights